Right To Constitutional Remedies (article 32)

The Fundamental Rights are the Constitution's best conferment. They frame the ramifications of our Constitution in some way. If there is no instrument to authorise them, each of these Rights is meaningless. A component like this is found in Article 32. That is why it is the Constitution's crown jewel, delegated wonder, heart, and spirit.

 

A right without a remedy is merely a declaration of worthlessness. When there is an effective way to carry out a right, it becomes valuable. According to Dr. Ambedkar,

 

“If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important- an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity— I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it and I am glad that the House has realised its importance.” The right to petition the Supreme Court when a fundamental right is violated is a fundamental right in and of itself. It is a constitutional remedy, which the Constitution guarantees. The following is the text of Article 32: Article 32 {Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part}

 

1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

 

2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

 

3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1)and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

 

4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

 

The right to petition the Supreme Court in appropriate proceedings is guaranteed.

 

Appropriate proceedings must be used to move the Supreme Court. It refers to legal actions that may be appropriate depending on the type of order, direction, or writ that the petitioner is seeking from the court. The Court has always been extremely lenient and helpful to petitioners who come to it.

 

Even a letter addressed to the Court by the poor, disabled, or ignorant can legitimately be regarded as an appropriate proceeding when it comes to the enforcement of fundamental rights of the poor, disabled, or ignorant. The letter does not have to be in any specific format. It is not permitted to be addressed to the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice. Postcards addressed to any judge have been accepted as legal documents. It's been dubbed "epistolatory proceedings." Appropriate proceedings may not be adversary proceedings that are directed at a specific individual. They could be inquisitorial, in which the court makes broad inquiries to determine whether a fundamental right is being violated.

 

The use of the word guaranteed in Cl. (1) of Art. 32 has the effect of making the right to petition the Supreme Court where a fundamental right has been violated a fundamental right. The following are the outcomes of this guarantee: –

 

Article 359. The right cannot be suspended except as provided in Art. 359.

 

Article 360. Supreme Court is the guarantor of fundamental rights and it is the duty of the Supreme Court to grant relief under Art. 32 where a fundamental right has been violated.

 

In the first instance, an aggrieved party may file a complaint with the Supreme Court. He does not need to go to the Supreme Court. The existence of an alternative remedy is not a stumbling block to relief under Art. 32.

 

The right cannot be abridged or taken away by legislation.

 

A writ petition filed under Art. 32 is subject to the principles of res judicata. The rule of res judicata, on the other hand, does not apply to the writ of Habeas Corpus. If a petitioner is denied a writ by a High Court, he can appeal to the Supreme Court.